kingcast955@icloud.com -- In the Civil Rights Justice system there are two sets of people: Those who are haters and those who fight back. These are their stories. Blink-Blink.
Movies: KingCast.net and KingCast65 YouTube -- A NENPA member news and information journal.

05 December 2012

You can't watch this movie yet. Only Triumph can watch this movie yet.

You will know Friday at 12:01p EST

whether you can watch this movie and lawsuit proceedings.

I game them to end of day pursuant to request from Counsel.

If I have to go the distance I started NHTSA tag -- Reference No. 497626
They recommended if I have to pursue legal action that I file a formal complaint with FTC -- they review management policies
1.877.382.4357
My public servant was Robert #23064 and he was professional nice and courteous -- everything Triumph personnel are not. Won't be the first or last time I had to show a corporate behemoth how to behave.

In Movie #2 as Mr. Sprint mentions I discuss the half-assed fuel system recall that I installed only after NHTSA forced Triumph to fix it. Triumph, niggardly as always, only provided the male connectors when the female connector in the tank plate was also made of plastic and fuel-rotted. Had to go buy another one of those as I stuck rags about the tank to curb the leakage. I truly love Triumph motorcycles but the bullshit they can keep, and I will stand up and fight them tooth and nail. As I note in movie #2 Triumph is a premium brand, and every time they half-ass a warranty issue or disregard a warranty issue they are diluting the strength and integrity of the marque. In the long run they will thank me. Also the fuel fittings were replaced after Triumph reported but 18 complaints, I know damn well that they have at least that many shattered crankshafts. NHTSA Recall No. 0v-V-156000 I'll be adding this information to my Complaint and also need to add the 93A Treble Damages Demand Letter prior to suit.

First off, I am not alone as noted in the prior 955i threads but now I see a bloke in Ontario who missed his entire riding season over a camshaft problem, nice. The guy fucking got rid of his bike, yo. Well I ain't getting rid of my bike, I love my bike. I just need to see some corporate responsibility, and if I need to teach it to them the hard way so be it. It seems the only way to get at Triumph is to hail them into court, Jesus effin' Chrizzay. And to think that Triumph might have the nerve to crack on Harley-Davidson for reliability issues LOL. Movie coming momentarily, now back to my case:

The Court has Jurisdiction over Triumph pursuant to the Hague Convention
and general principles of fair play:

Kucik v. Yamaha
Motor Corp.,72 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 637

As already
mentioned, neither party has attempted to analyze the issue of personal
jurisdiction. However, the facts, meager as they are, appear to support a
conclusion that Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. would be subject to the jurisdiction of
this Court.

5The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty
which was enacted for the purpose of creating a simple and expeditious
procedure for service of process on foreign litigants in an effort to encourage
judicial assistance and cooperation in international litigation.

Note
that Plaintiff Kucik lost because he had no evidence, circumstantial or not,
that his motorcycle contained bad exhaust valves that caused his power to dip
at he approached a jump at WOT. But see FoMoCo v. Reed:

The Plaintiff offers
no evidence that the valves on the Plaintiff's motorcycle contained a defect. Any inference that the trier of
fact could draw that the intake valves were defective merely because the Plaintiff
lost power while operating the motorcycleat maximum RPMs is pure speculation. The
Plaintiff, aware that there is no direct evidence of a defect, relies onFord Motor Co. v. Reed, 689 N.E.2d 751, 755 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1997), to assert that an expert can prove
circumstantially that a specific defect caused [*24] a plaintiff's harm. InReed, the court allowed a product liability claim to go forward because a
fire occurring inside the console of a car was circumstantial evidence that
there was a defect.

From
Reed:

Unlike the cases Ford
cites, the Reeds all but eliminate every possibility but a defect in the
console. They only owned the car for a five-month [**12]
period and the testimony revealed that the fire occurred in an area of the car
to which they did not have access -- the console. Absent some indication of an
extraneous cause, the fact that there was a fire is also circumstantial
evidence that there was a defect. This, combined with the fact that Mang
indicated that the cause of the fire was an electrical defect within the center
console, is enough for the jury to conclude that some defect in the console
caused the fire. It is not fatal to the Reeds' claim that the expert could not,
with precision, point to which wire had shorted or otherwise generated such
heat or to cause the flames and why it had done so. The trial court correctly
denied Ford's Motion for Judgment on the Evidence in this respect.

This case is much more analogous to Reed because
the shattered engines that keep occurring stand in the same shoes as the
console fire. The engine in Plaintiff’s motorcycle has never been apart –
Plaintiff stopped short of removing the side cover just in case that fact must
be proved. And unlike Reed, Plaintiff King has maintained the evidence in his
exclusive possession and control. In fact it is sitting in his driveway at this
very moment. Plaintiff told Triumph representative Peter Carleo that we would
get some post-it notes to put under the tyres so it could at least serve as a
paperweight.